Unregistered, as a new member your first 5 posts will be subject to moderation.
So if your post is submitted successfully, but does not show up immediately, please be patient, as it may take some time for a moderator to approve it.
Please don't double post.

ha! I thought there really is a movement. Is there? sorry, confused now.... it wasn't fucking so ygirl

I thought of that after the second time I edited my message, but by then I was already in bed.

I should have said, "AS FAR AS I KNOW, there is no organized CF 'movement'". At least, if there is one, I am definitely not part of it, much less a member of any sort of governing body it would have. There are internet forums and social groups and shit like that. I am not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking; I just like it when I do find other people who already think the way I do. This holds true for other things besides being CF.

Quote:

Even was a I was child free I noticed this.... just in case you think I'm talking about after.

Wellll.... I already said that if you ever wanted a kid you were never CF. The whole reason for using the suffix "-free" instead of "-less" is to draw emphasis away from the notion that someone WANTS a kid. I believe you said you got pregnant intentionally. That says to me that you wanted a kid. Therefore you were not child-free before that, you were child-LESS, or "pre-child" or "pre-parent", or whatever you prefer.

Having said all that, I hereby give you my permission to call yourself "CF for the weekend" and to be loud and obnoxious as much as you want and annoy all the other campers, whether they are CF or not. I am also going camping this weekend (again) and plan to try to not annoy anyone (except my husband, perhaps) and in return, all I expect is to be left in peace. And, I am usually the loudest, I'm sure I'm louder than you. If you were screaming at the top of your lungs and I was speaking in my normal speaking voice, I guarantee that it would be me who would be singled out and complained about. This actually happened to me once where some woman at a nudist campground asked me if I had any kids, and when I said "no" she said "Good for YOU!" and we got into a "loud obnoxious" conversation about it. After I got home, I got an email from the owners saying that I was no longer welcome there because I offended people with my conversation that day. Yes, there were other people around and one family with two teenagers, but my conversation was not x-rated or anything. I think I dropped one or two F-bombs before I realized there were minors nearby, after which I made a point to use G-rated cussing, such as saying "freaking" instead of "fucking". But I am sure that it was the nature of the conversation, that is, having different fundamental values and priorities than those most people tend to hold near and dear, combined with the fact that I eschew one of the things most people hold nearest and dearest.

So, I tend to avoid hanging out with small children, not because I can't stand them, but because I do not want to have to censor myself continuously. Remember the video conference we had, where I was holding up my dildos and your son walked right up to the computer screen? HE did nothing wrong, and I was being my usual silly self, but it was not age-appropriate for a 7-year-old. That is the sort of thing I'm talking about. And for the record, I think your son is an awesome kid, or person if you prefer, if only from what I know of him through you and Mono on here and on FB.

ETA: Having a baby and giving it up for adoption or being an egg-donor or surrogate and then claiming to "be" CF is a bit like having sexual intercourse "just one time" and then claiming to still "be" a virgin. It's just one of those things that once you do it, you can't go back. Maybe I can bend a little regarding the surrogacy if the surrogate is ONLY acting as a carrier for another couple's fertilized egg, but if the offspring is of the host's DNA, then no, the surrogate is not CF.

If you give birth to a child, even if you never parent that child, you are not child free? But if you birth a child, but the child does not carry your genetic material (i.e. a surrogate) you can be CF? Why is passing on your DNA the sticking point, and not the pregnancy? What about sperm or egg donors? Can't they be child free?

I can see that this is just your definition of CF, but what is the benefit of being so restrictive? What do you lose by calling a couple who are determined to never have children "child-free" when one of them might have genetic offspring that they have never nurtured, raised or parented themselves?

As far as I have understood it, CF just means someone who does not have children and likes it that way. If the products of your genetic material are out there, that does not make them your children. Being a parent is a lot more than just passing on your DNA.

I agree with that. And being CF is a lot more (or a lot LESS, if you prefer) than not just being a "parent". It ALSO means not passing on your DNA.

The benefit of having such a restrictive definition of what it means to be CF is so that there is some criteria for identifying other like-minded individuals. I thought I said this somewhere already, but I may have edited it in while you were typing your post.

I'm a little bit amused by how much stock people seem to be placing in my opinion(s) about this, as though I'm some sort of authority figure. Just because I have strong, black-and-white viewpoints doesn't mean that I believe these should be legislated or anything. I know why - because it's an emotionally-charged subject. Well, I happen to think that this subject is sugar-coated in day-to-day communication rather enough, and I have taken this opportunity to speak frankly in the wake of all the times that I have to censor myself in order to function effectively in society. If this means that some people would choose to not like me, then I am prepared to live with that because "I would rather be hated for being who I really am than be liked for being something I am not" or however the saying goes.

I agree with that. And being CF is a lot more (or a lot LESS, if you prefer) than not just being a "parent". It ALSO means not passing on your DNA.

But why? What is it about passing on your DNA that makes you think that person cannot be "child free"?

Quote:

The benefit of having such a restrictive definition of what it means to be CF is so that there is some criteria for identifying other like-minded individuals. I thought I said this somewhere already, but I may have edited it in while you were typing your post.

If it is about "identifying like-minded individuals", then I understand even less. If you meet someone who has exactly your view, and shares all your opinions on the subject, but 15 years ago, they had a different perspective and had a child adopted, or donated sperm, what makes them not like-minded now?

Quote:

I'm a little bit amused by how much stock people seem to be placing in my opinion(s) about this, as though I'm some sort of authority figure.

I don't think that is what is happening. Your definitions are just being questioned because they seem arbitrary - that's all.

But why? What is it about passing on your DNA that makes you think that person cannot be "child free"?

Ariakas explained it. Thanks Ari for doing the leg-work for me.

Quote:

If it is about "identifying like-minded individuals", then I understand even less. If you meet someone who has exactly your view, and shares all your opinions on the subject, but 15 years ago, they had a different perspective and had a child adopted, or donated sperm, what makes them not like-minded now?

I believe that being CF is something that is not an intellectual choice, but more like an instinct, much the same way that most people think that the "biological urge" to have children is also an "instinct" that cannot be denied. Maybe the term "like-minded" individuals was inaccurate in this context. It might have been more accurate for me to say "individuals with the same instinctive aversion to self-replication"? I realize that it is important to choose the right words and oftentimes I can be in a bit of haste to finish my posts. I tend to edit them a lot for this very reason.

Again, I invoke the "virginity comparison": If you had sex when you were unmarried and say, 17 years old, then you decided that sex before marriage is wrong, you're not a "born-again virgin". Once you have sex, your virginity is GONE - BYE BYE! The same goes for being CF. You can't un-ring that bell.

Interesting enough, someone on one of the CF forums agrees with you on this and suggested that if someone did the donor thing "just for the money" then she would consider them to "be" CF in practice if not in theory. I hadn't thought of that contingency previously, and it does give me something new to mull over, but I am still leaning toward my original stance.

Quote:

I don't think that is what is happening. Your definitions are just being questioned because they seem arbitrary - that's all.

Indeed, my definitions do seem arbitrary and I don't have any problem with people questioning them. People have been questioning my arbitrary definitions all the way through this thread and I have answered every time. I happen to have a black-and-white viewpoint on this topic, but I am also willing to answer questions to the best of my ability.

Is there some law of the universe that says one cannot hold arbitrary opinions about anything? If so, would you please direct me to it? A Wiki link should suffice.

Child-free from what I have read is the desire to not procreate, period. Passing along your dna inherently means you are going to procreate, thereby excluding it from the definition.

I don't agree. I don't think that having genetic offspring in the world is the same thing as "having children" (as the dictionary definition you linked to defined it.) I don't see a sperm donor who isn't even aware of whether or not his genetic material has been used as a parent, and therefore he does not "have children." And I don't think many men who donate sperm do so because they desire to procreate. Nor is a man who accidentally got a woman pregnant, never saw her again, and was not aware that the baby was born, a parent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YGirl

Again, I invoke the "virginity comparison": If you had sex when you were unmarried and say, 17 years old, then you decided that sex before marriage is wrong, you're not a "born-again virgin". Once you have sex, your virginity is GONE - BYE BYE! The same goes for being CF. You can't un-ring that bell.

I don't really see the point in the comparison, because virginity is a fundamentally useless concept to me. The pro-virginity movements does, as you say, accept "renewed virgins", which makes a lot more sense to me than sticking to the dictionary definition of the term "virgin" no matter what.

Quote:

Is there some law of the universe that says one cannot hold arbitrary opinions about anything? If so, would you please direct me to it? A Wiki link should suffice.

Questioning your arbitrary views is not the same as saying you should not have them.

I have to say its almost humourous to me that this thread is so long! Who would of thought!?

Ygirl- question... In your oh so interesting opinion, would I not be considered child free if I didn't want a baby until I was 31? I was adimently against kids until then. For all the reasons I hear on here and elsewhere; drain on the environment, too many kids in the world, etc. Then I had this huge overwhelming desire to have the child I have. I dreamt about him. He came into my life for some reason.

I was pregnant again but wasn't all that interested and am not sure why we thought it was a good idea. We lost her.
Now I would take foster kids, look after kids in other ways... I sponser a child in rhwanda for instance. I figure the energy I would of spent on another child, and money, is better spent on kids who have less than mine. That to me is taking care of our world and its future. Something I feel good about.

Ygirl- question... In your oh so interesting opinion, would I not be considered child free if I didn't want a baby until I was 31? I was adimently against kids until then. For all the reasons I hear on here and elsewhere; drain on the environment, too many kids in the world, etc. Then I had this huge overwhelming desire to have the child I have. I dreamt about him. He came into my life for some reason.

I know this happens quite a bit. "I never wanted kids until my biological clock went off." I choose to not consider people who go that route (yourself included) because this is one reason why people who REALLY ARE CF AND WILL ALWAYS BE CF are not taken seriously about it. We go to the doctor asking for permanent sterilization and are told "You'll change your mind" and it's because of people such as yourself who DO change their minds. The CF people that I know on the other forums are fed up by being told that we don't know our own minds. We are held hostage by a medical establishment and a society that glorifies pregnancy and child-rearing and perpetuates the myth that women are baby machines who are at the beck and call of their reproductive-endocrine systems. Does ANY of this sound familiar? It seems as though the movement for reproductive freedom / family planning has exhibited some backlash in the form of making it look like there is now no good "excuse" for saying "no" to procreation. If I were to meet a stranger in a coffeeshop and somehow get into a conversation about whether or not we both have kids, and I said "I can't have kids", they WOULD assume that I "can't" have them due to some circumstance beyond my control, when in fact I "can't" because my parts have been surgically removed by CHOICE.

Although, I should explain that I was able to obtain the procedure rather easily due to the fact that I have a severe case of endometriosis and a GYN who is very pro-patient. I also live in a part of the country that is more liberal about these things than other parts of the country.

Quote:

I don't agree. I don't think that having genetic offspring in the world is the same thing as "having children" (as the dictionary definition you linked to defined it.) I don't see a sperm donor who isn't even aware of whether or not his genetic material has been used as a parent, and therefore he does not "have children." And I don't think many men who donate sperm do so because they desire to procreate. Nor is a man who accidentally got a woman pregnant, never saw her again, and was not aware that the baby was born, a parent.

I'm going to copy-pasta something from in a thread on a CF forum which speaks to this issue. These are not my words, but these words describe my standpoint rather well:

Quote:

I think people are a little too optimistic about the privacy of sperm donation, egg donation, closed adoptions, and the like. I know several people who came of age right around the time that adoption records started to become available to the kids who had been adopted, and one girl I know made her real mom's life an absolute fucking mess because the girl was manic-depressive and unwell mentally, refused to receive treatment or meds because she wanted to keep hearing the voice of God inside her head which told her to do stuff (I think she was a tad schizophrenic too but mostly she had bipolar symptoms)....and she latched onto and stalked her real mom. Her real mom had been one of those sad teens of the early 1960's forced to give up her baby because she was an unwed mom; years later she got married and had two kids with her new husband. Then her adopted daughter shows up with a huge bucket of unfulfilled emotional need, and it totally wrecked all of the people involved.

I have also heard of people finding out who their sperm donor daddy was. So I don't think any of those activities like donating sperm or eggs should be seen as being childfree at ALL because you can DEFINITELY end up with a kid on your doorstep at some point. Same with "closed' adoptions. Laws change, records end up being shared (whether legally or through bribery).....so there is no such thing as total anonymity with that stuff. Which is scary!

Quote:

I don't really see the point in the comparison, because virginity is a fundamentally useless concept to me. The pro-virginity movements does, as you say, accept "renewed virgins", which makes a lot more sense to me than sticking to the dictionary definition of the term "virgin" no matter what.

The point of the comparison is that you can't un-do it once you cross the line. I don't really care if the pro-virginity movement accepts "renewed virgins". How are they renewed? Do they sew them back up? Take a time-machine back in time and not have sex? That just doesn't make any sense. It also does not make any sense if you have a biological offspring and call yourself "child-free". I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that, except to impress someone else who really is CF. If someone gave up a kid for adoption or had a kid that died or whatever and they want to call themselves CF, I can't really stop them, and if they don't tell me, then I have no way of knowing, but if I found out, I would certainly wonder why they find it necessary to identify themselves to the world as CF. There are some things you can change or un-do, such as marriages or sexual orientations, and some things you can't change, such as a limb amputation or having your genetic material used for the purpose of creating another organism.